Was it a political embarrassment? I thought it was exactly what is helpful to the Obama administration. Instead of being responsible for cheapening contraception and perhaps risking women's health in the process, Obama et al. can say the judge made it happen. It's great political cover.

But that controversy may look like a tempest in a teapot compared with a broader and no less heated discussion that is roiling the medical community: should birth-control pills of any type require a doctor’s prescription? Or should they be available, like Tylenol, on pharmacy shelves?

Last December the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists released an official position paper concluding that the time had come for birth-control pills to be sold over the counter. It was the first time the group had endorsed such sales, concluding that scientific evidence suggested that the practice was safe and calling it “a potential way to improve contraceptive access and use, and possibly decrease the unintended pregnancy rate.”

After having won reelection by demagoguing contraception, Obama is mired in the horrible — how horrible? — problem of implementing the Affordable Care Act, with its promise of contraception coverage. What would be more helpful than birth control pills sold over the counter like Tylenol? Oh, it's safe enough say the obstetricians and gynecologists. What are their economic interests here? Do they want a big new stream of patients coming in for simple prescriptions? Perhaps they fear the piddling reimbursements they'll get for this work. If only the federal courts would take the heat for the decision to block access to doctors for routine birth control care. The federal courts could make it seem like it's about — yay! — Women's Rights and not — boo! — cost cutting.

But the NYT analysis is not about the economics of Obamacare and things that might disturb liberals. It's about the Warriors on Women, the religionists and pro-lifers. They've been questioning the safety of the morning-after pill, which, unlike regular birth control pills, entails the abortion issue. Making righties seems like the opponents of over-the-counter birth control pills is a great distraction from the cost-cutting in the implementation of Obamacare. If righties are the opponents, opposition — to lefties — is toxic.

That legal dispute [over morning after pills] has highlighted the Obama administration’s hair splitting over the sensitive issue of contraceptive policy. Even though F.D.A. doctors said in 2011 that studies showed that it was safe to sell Plan B, the most common emergency contraceptive, to adolescents over the counter, the administration refused to approve the practice. (It was already available to older women.) That set the stage for the ruling earlier this month by Judge Edward R. Korman of the Eastern District of New York, who called the administration’s action “politically motivated and scientifically unjustified” — essentially an attempt to appease religious conservatives.

Surely, the Obama people are privately thanking Judge Korman. Opposition to the need to go to the doctor for birth control is religious conservatism. The judge says it's women's rights!

Politics aside, there are procedural hurdles to clear before packs of birth-control pills can be sold without prescription. First of all, a drug maker would most likely have to apply to the F.D.A. to make the switch....

Right. All those hormone thingies....they mean nothing. Take a lot. Take a little. No effect on your body. Well. Maybe a little. Breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes. But if it helps Obama make his affordable care act actually a bit more affordable, well....you ladies are ready to take the hit, fall on the sword (so to speak /wink). Right? What is a little hormonal mischief to your bodies compared to making Obama look good.

Cost Cutting? You may have it backward. Obamacare pays for prescription drugs (e.g. BC pills). It doesn't pay for condoms over the counter. Make BC pills an OTC item, Does Obamacare cover it? Doesn't that cut costs?

As for OBGYNs not wanting to prescribe BC pills? I assume the prescriptions are annual. Any smart Doc will code that visit as an annual physical, for which he gets $200. Without those, an OBGYN can't live off babies and yeast infections alone.

Please lets rule out the idea that free/easy/OTC birth control pills will cut down on "unwanted" pregnancies. To start with not all of them are actually unwanted but be that as it may, effective use of birth control pills requires a minimal exercise of planning and discipline. Where's that going to come from?

Making righties seems like the opponents of over-the-counter birth control pills is a great distraction from the cost-cutting in the implementation of Obamacare.

Complicating this piece of the narrative is that last year supporting OTC birth control was vilified as part of the War on Women. Naturally the good lefties of the world have no problem claiming both support for OTC BC and opposition to OTC BC is part of the War on Women. Unless you're a lefty of course. For lefties both support for OTC BC and opposition to OTC BC is support for women against their evil oppressors.

As a woman, I would like family planning counseling before I made a choice. As a woman, I am digesting chemicals that will alter my reproductive organs to a non-functioning state for the long term prevention of pregnancy.

At least with Plan B the argument is made that its use is for an emergency within a limited time frame.

Why not OTC for pap smears and STDs, as well. You can buy DNA paternity kits too.

"Obama is mired in the horrible — how horrible? — problem of implementing the Affordable Care Act, with its promise of contraception coverage. What would be more helpful than birth control pills sold over the counter like Tylenol?"

Regardless of the fact that it's over-the-counter, Sandra Fluke et al. will still want us to pay for it. It's their right, you know.

I would love for BC to be available without a prescription, simply because then I'd skip my annual physical. It's the only reason I go. Since BC & annuals are now "free", by making BC OTC, I would have to pay for it (and it's what, $9/month without insurance?). It'd be a great savings for health insurance companies and Obamacare. My costs went up when Allegra went from prescription to OTC. But overall, the cost probably went down since there were no third parties involved in the transaction anymore.

If we make all birth control OTC, then religious employers won't have to cover it. So, I'm in favor. Last time I checked, a lot of theologians had suggested that as a solution since it would let people who were opposed to BC avoid directly paying for it, but still let others buy it.

Really, why should insurance cover them? And why is BC free, but inhalers not? Aren't asthma meds more important than the pill?

Reeen, please spell my name correctly. Then please reflect on the level of care that was given to human women in the Gosnell clinic. Women who have repeat abortions do not seem to care about the benefits of family planning.

You advocate natural birth control, you honestly think women who repeatedly abort their babies think like you do?

This is how things will work under Obamacare. Popular drugs that were covered by insurance and pose little threat of harm when used will be moved to OTC--like Claritin, Zyrtec and other allergy medications. This way the government program saves money by having us by the drugs with out a prescription.

I agree with Diedre that this also gives Obama (some) cover in his fights with religious groups that object to providing contraceptive coverage.

However, what about poor Sandra Fluke? Who is going to pay for her contraception?

Pay no attention to the doubters, the heretics, who claim this devotion is misguided. Ignore those who warn of terrible consequences--they are unbelievers whose lot is to be cast into outer darkness!

Do not fear to take mega-doses of hormones, only believe!

Holy Contraception will be our salvation."

4/23/13, 10:32 AM

A Gosnell type probably would get a chuckle out of this comment, he would nod his head and think of all the babies he could abort in a day work, seeing dollar signs in his head. The natural family planners would stand outside of the clinic with signs picturing little feet, while REAL little feet were being put in jars on the shelf.

Yes Patrick, I know. It's worth the cost to us as a society, isn't it, or shouldn't it be?

Only if it doesn't create more problems for women because one size does not fit all. Abortions aren't the only problem that can arise from this.

Again if we want less abortions, let's put our money where our mouths are.

But, of course, it isn't about health or babies (and I thought the Lefties were starting to worry about where they'll get the thralls to serve them if the babies don't keep coming), it's about politics and pandering to all those "low info" voters.

As always, the She Devil of the SS regurgitates the Lefty line without thinking.

I live overseas in a developed country that allows birth control pills to be sold OTC except Yasmin and maybe a couple of other brands. They are about $10 a pack. We do have a form of national health insurance. No idea if they was a factor in the decision to make the pill OTC.

A woman has a choice either way. Isn't it more humane to prevent an unwanted life than to kill one? Isn't "Thou shalt not kill" a Commandment. I don't remember reading, "Thou shalt not prevent".

Except for Protestants, I think there is.

Are we back to vilifying birth control again? So soon after the Gosnell horror? How soon we forget.

Oh, Christ, what drivel!

The Willie Whitewater school of public manipulation. Because we're careful about the risks of generic contraception methods, that constitutes "vilification". There's no middle ground, no thoughtful concern.

Yes Patrick, I know. It's worth the cost to us as a society, isn't it, or shouldn't it be?.

You might think so, but not if you look at the correlation between much more widely available contraception and increased unwanted pregnancy.

Not to say contraception should not be available, but effective contraception is already cheap and easy to obtain. Making it even easier and cheaper or free will not eliminate or even reduce unwanted pregnancy among those who are currently too irresponsible to use it.

What is the reasoning for Birth-Control pills to require prescription at all? Are they more dangerous than all the stuff that doesn't require prescriptions?

Yes, they are. Quite more dangerous. There are medical contraindications to them that the average user may not be aware of, or may chose to ignore. For example, a woman who has migraines with visual auras should not take hormonal contraceptives. They can increase her risk for a stroke. They are also known to cause blood clots and pulmonary emboli, which can be fatal. Considering that some drugs, such as Vioxx, have been taken off the market for less, I'm surprised the FDA hasn't taken oral contraceptives off the market. But then, they are a politically protected class.

Again if we want less abortions, let's put our money where our mouths are.

[If we are going to make body parts analogies.....]

If we want less abortions, let's keep our knees together.

I know!!! Let us make everything OTC then we won't HAVE to buy health insurance or be fined for NOT buying health insurance. Pay as you go. The price on everything will come down. Maybe even let us buy a catastrophic policy for those unexpected dire emergency events. Ooooops....Obamacare took that option off of the table.

Hmmm. I wonder if taking the doctor consultation out of it would result in a decrease in unplanned pregnancies (more access) or an increase (less accurate use)

It's funny,because during the Sandra Fluke debate the argument was about how hard it is for a woman and her doctor to find the right pill. She can't just use the cheap one! So will the argument become, of course a woman can choose an OTC pill!?

What is wrong with paying for the service as you receive it? When you go to the doctor, which for most people isn't all that often or shouldn't be very often, give them a check or pay cash. If the doctors don't need to hire 6 people to support their work by doing insurance billing, the cost of the visit will come down.

THIS is what WE do. Pay cash. Even with a pre-existing condition for my husband our total out of pocket costs are less than $2000 for the year. This includes prescriptions (generic), blood testing and physical check 2 times a year for him, once a year for me and a mammo every other years. Plus an occasional visit for me (if I'm bleeding from a deep wound or broke something). Beats the living snot out of paying $1800 a month for health insurance that covers crap we don't need.....like maternity coverage.

Because we pay as you go....we get a steep discount on everything. Doctor's visit is $35.

Health care should be like how a dog gets health care from a veterinarian. You can't afford something you either let it go and hope it gets better, or they put you down. Do dogs and cats complain about it? No.

If BC pills become OTC then the drug companies are going to demand immunity from lawsuits.

If BC pills and morning after pills become OTC and abortion stays legal then it's time to make child support voluntary. If the republicans were to propose that and make paternity tests mandatory for the purposes of child support and alimony enough liberal men will support them inspite of losses of woman voters to guarantee them for various election cycles. An added benefit would be the probable large reduction in single mothers and abortions.

Health care should be like how a dog gets health care from a veterinarian. You can't afford something you either let it go and hope it gets better, or they put you down.

There is a little nugget of truth in here. Most of the time, whatever ails you will get better all by itself. The ability to take yourself to the doctor for every little hangnail, sniffle, ache and pain ....AND then get the insurance company to pay two to three times the actual cost of the procedure is why our health care costs AND why our insurance premiums are going sky high.

You should have insurance -- if you want it -- for things like cancer, heart attacks, broken limbs. (If you don't have insurance for that kind of thing, and you're in an accident, pay!) Make sure you choose wisely. (Link to Indiana Jones not included here)

This seems like a really bad idea. Birth control prescriptions often have very serious side effects, one of the biggest being depression. I've heard and seen how serious those side-effects can be and they are no joke. And people do not always appreciate that BC is the cause. I have to wonder what sort of impact this has on the world, how many relationships have been destroyed, jobs quit, or even suicides attempted. Many people also don't appreciate the huge variety in BC formulations out there and what the different options are. Whether it's a nurse practitioner or a doctor I think having someone to consult with is probably a good idea for anyone on a hormonal therapy regime.

The Gosnell massacre would not have been prevented by access to free birth control. The problem was not only Gosnell, who was a contractor, but his clients, the mothers, as well as the people who support and normalize elective abortion as a choice.

The problem is that dissociation of risk causes corruption. While it is dreams of material (e.g. redistributive change), physical (e.g. promiscuity), and ego (e.g. activism through symbolism) instant (or immediate) gratification which motivates its progress. The dissociation is engendered by policies which remove or shift liability or responsibility for individual actions.

The Gosnell massacre occurred because women, and men, were promised a life without consequences. The principals in that crime were not only Gosnell but also the mothers, and perhaps the fathers if they also chose an elective abortion for reason of wealth and welfare.

It is policies like welfare, and redistributive change, which sponsor corruption of both the benefactors and beneficiaries. The problem is that a slight majority of Americans support progressive corruption and dysfunction, when promises a beachfront property in Hawaii, and freedom from responsibility for their actions.

I was at the supermarket last weekend and overheard a mother and daughter talking about which brands of peanut butter they were allowed to buy for snacks for school. And then they limit sugar, BGH in milk, etc. at school too. But allow our young girls to put as many hormones in their bodies as necessary so that they can feel free to engage with underage sex and expose themselves to more health risks like STD, prenancy, etc., and these same people are all for that. What hypocrites!

This is exactly why extending insurance coverage is not the solution. The problem begins with progressive inflation in the medical and pharmaceutical sectors. It continues with a comprehensive set of causes, including: supply, employment, immigration (especially unmeasured illegal immigration), resource recovery and availability (especially energy), personal responsibility, etc., all of which are ignored in the current review.

People have a distorted understanding of the purpose insurance is intended to serve. That it is capable of reasonably serving. They think it should indemnify them from the consequences of their voluntary actions and that it should be available without an investment. This is the same cause of corruption, especially our financial crisis, which follows from our liberal monetary policies, and is reflected in unaffordable health care today and in the foreseeable future.

This is also why Gosnell's little clinic of horrors was not only a possible but likely occurrence. We are normalizing (i.e. promoting) the wrong behaviors. We should expect the wrong outcomes to become the rule rather than the exception.

Tylenol is a terrible OTC drug to use for examples as it's terribly toxic and would never be allowed on the market if it was newly discovered. The dose required to damage or destroy your liver isn't terribly high and is particularly low if you're drinking or malnourished.

Women have enjoyed extraordinary "progress" from the days of "barefoot and pregnant." Today, they are encouraged to remain available for sex and taxation.

It's an interesting juxtaposition, isn't it?

Traditionally, the value of women in society was as mothers, wives, and stewards. Today, it is principally associated with her sexual (and asexual) organs, and the taxable profit she will produce for the state.

There is a correlation between these positions, and while the distinction is nuanced, there is also a material difference.

For example, women are never perpetually "barefoot and pregnant", and their husbands share responsibility before, during, and after procreation, including to support his wife's personal interests and development.

While condoms are more effective to provide benign birth prevention, and the only effective measure to prevent transmission of STDs, including AIDS, they also serve to harsh a man and woman's enjoyment. This is not what a slight majority of men and women are voting for. They want the freedom which follows from dissociation of risk. They want liberty and a beachfront property in Hawaii.

Also, we cannot (or should not?) expect men and women to be capable of self-moderating behavior. This would not only undermine their ability to enjoy their rights, but it would also prevent opportunistic behavior by public and private actors to exploit and advance their own political, economic, and social standing.

Happy Inga? That I like the idea my menstrual cycle is free and pure of toxins.

I don't usually get preachy with people about my views, they know where I stand and actually value the reasoning why we use Natural Family Planning. I don't judge women, most women are on the Pill from a very young age prescribed by their doctors for 'health reasons'.

Doctors have been prescribing the Pill for so long to regulate menstrual bleeding (technically anovulatory bleeding), it would be strange to see the Pill over the counter.

I was going to point out that these hormones end up in the water, but I see that someone already beat me to it.The question is, though, is this at a higher level than would have occurred w/o the pill? I don't know.

What follows if contraception wasn't used or contraception fails? Either adoption or abortion or the mother keeps the child. Do those women in that Gosnell video look like the were the types to put their unwanted children up for adoption?

Do they look like the type who should've kept and raised thier unwanted children? Or do they look like the type (and admit that the are) REPEAT aborters?

Oh, you want me to inveigh against abortion too? OK, throw me into that briar patch!

Pope Paul VI, who was vilified for re-affirming the Catholic Church's constant teaching that sex, by its nature, is ordained for life, and should remain open to life, made a series of predictions in his 1968letter, Humanae Vitae.

One was that women would not be given greater dignity (as advocates of contraception promised), but degraded. (Check.)

Marriages would not be strengthened, but pulled apart. (Check.)

Society would experience a general lowering of morality. (Check.)

And public authorities would seek to push contraception upon their citizens with growing coercion (Check.)

Now, Pope Paul VI didn't mention abortion specifically--at least, I don't recall it--but it is worth comparing his predictions with those of the contraception-devotees, who then--and now--claim that more devotion to Holy Contraception will prevent abortions.

Just one wee problem with that faith-claim: it's false.

Abortions have exploded in the years since contraception has become widely available.

Note, for example, that the latest wave of promotion of "contraception" as the alternative to abortion has featured drugs that induce early, chemical abortion, re-named "contraception" to make it more palatable, and also to sustain the faith-claim that contraception prevents abortions.

Contraception and abortion go together; because once you accept the premises that a baby is an illness to prevent rather than an inestimable gift to be received, as well as the notion that our sexuality is something like a commodity, rather than a mystery of human and divine interaction--then it follows rather easily that abortion will be justified as backup contraception.

And Gosnell's butchery is simply the expression of that mindset at its most grotesque.

The emphasis with pregnancy should be on the responsibilities of both the mother and father. Neither the woman nor the man should enjoy a dissociation of risk. They both need to be equally responsible for their actions. This is the behavior which a healthy society should normalize (i.e. promote). At least a society which desires to remain viable and free.

The emphasis should also be on a romantic relationship between men and women, which is capable of providing for the potential but predictable outcome of their sexual union.

The problem did not begin with but was exacerbated by the sexual revolution. This marked the beginning of a retrogressive process where people recaptured behaviors which are not strictly compatible with enjoying liberty in a civilized society.

When the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is evil, we don't mean just for Catholics. It's an evil for humanity.

Sure, I realize that message hasn't been received yet. But our Founder and his message were so popular that he was put to death. That tends to blunt the power of the, "what you advocate isn't popular" argument for us.

"Note, for example, that the latest wave of promotion of "contraception" as the alternative to abortion has featured drugs that induce early, chemical abortion, re-named "contraception" to make it more palatable, and also to sustain the faith-claim that contraception prevents abortions.

4/23/13, 12:50 PMShould a woman not breast feed? Because you know that breast feeding thins out the endometrium and a fertilized egg many times doesn't implant. Early unknown abortion.

I just heard this on the news, charges have been dropped against Gosnell??!! I'm gong to go see if I can verify this elsewhere.

DBQ, NO KIDDING. I'm talking about a BABY being killed because the mother didn't use contraception,

Actually, you are talking about a baby being killed because the mother wanted to kill her baby.

Now that contraception is OTC....not free, but available at the price of a mocha café grande a month or a small pizza or a six pack of beer, what excuse are you going to make up now to excuse abortion.

There but for the price of a pizza goes the baby? If only we hadn't hat that six pack instead of the packet of pills we wouldn't have to kill our children? So for about $9 a month we can excuse killing babies.

DBQ, did someone say it was OK for a woman to have an abortion? Did someone say it was an acceptable "excuse" ? If I remember correctly you have said you were pro choice, but didn't want to pay for anyone's abortion.

You're not making a whole lot of sense, DBQ.

Why did the mother WANT to kill her a baby? Wouldn't it be better to prevent the killing of an unwanted baby?

The fact that all the world isn't Catholic is not an argument against me (and other Catholics) arguing for the evil of contraception, but a reason for doing so. Part of the "go and teach all nations..." mandate.

That's the solution. If women, and men, reject responsibility for the potential but predictable outcome of their actions, then it is they who should suffer the consequences. Not the innocent human life they knowingly but inconveniently brought into this world.

This is the choice which should be granted to irresponsible men and women. They have the unalienable right to fuck, but they do not have a right deprive another human being of their life without cause or due process. If they give up their right to responsible liberty, then the cause of their irresponsible behavior must be addressed. This is how psychotic behavior is normally handled.

Elective abortion is an act of premeditated murder. It is a crime committed against an individual, society, and humanity. We all have a stake in preserving the value of human life and to prevent or limit acts of involuntary exploitation.

And your point about breastfeeding is exceedingly silly. But...OK, fine, I'll explain it, amazed as I am that this needs explaining.

There is a huge difference between that which one causes by interference (contraception, abortion) and that which happens unavoidably (breastfeeding, exercise, illness).

So, yes, babies can abort spontaneously for any number of reasons. You say breastfeeding, I don't know so I'll take your word for it. A woman is no more obliged to avoid breastfeeding, because there *could* be a spontaneous abortion, than she would be morally obliged to avoid exercise, or catching the flu, or whatever other, otherwise innocent activities could trigger a miscarriage or a failure of an embryo to implant. (I don't know if that actually includes exercise or the flu, those were wild guesses.)

That's very different from injecting or ingesting a foreign substance, that has no business in the body, with the purpose of destroying a baby.

(The moral character of ingesting a foreign substance that can foreseeably have that consequence, among others--and with a less invidious intent, is something of a middle-ground. But then, all things that are evil are not all evil in the same way, or to the same degree. Stealing is evil, murder is evil; but they aren't equally evil.)

If the fertilized egg does not embed in the endometrium it's not a pregnancy. An IUD makes the endometrial lining not conducive to a fertilized egg, nor does breast feeding. Taking a BC pill prevents an egg from becoming fertilized.

I am actually in favor of this. Sure, some women are sure to die as a result of making BC OTC. But, in the larger scheme of things, it will make our fight for male ED therapies OTC that much easier. Called the "slippery slope". You get your BC pills OTC, and we get our Viagra. Works for me.

Father Fox, I'm not saying that you shouldn't preach what you believe to be true, epecially as a Catholic Priest, but perhaps you might try to understand why non Catholics would reject Catholic doctrine? Some of us are not Catholics and Catholic doctrine is not what we believe to be a UNIVERSAL truth, no offense.

I am not saying that what I have put forth is correct for everyone, it's up to them and their OWN religious beliefs or morals.

My statement that contraception isn't evil in any degree is expressing a non Catholic view, we all get to express our views and beliefs here, but the difference is, I'm not saying my ideas are the correct news for "HUMANITY", as you've said.--------------------------------------"By the way, I'm certainly aware that everyone isn't Catholic.

So what?

When the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is evil, we don't mean just for Catholics. It's an evil for humanity."

This is the choice which should be granted to irresponsible men and women. They have the unalienable right to fuck...

There have been several arguments put forth by the pro-choice crowd structured to off load the responsibility for abortion onto their opponents. The finger pointing argument that resistance to the availability of free contraception - read paid for by others -and now OTC chemical contraception is or will be responsible for more abortions is about as irresponsible as it gets.

Its just another redefinition of the narrative in the same vein that if early abortion were more acceptable then late abortions - which makes even the left squeamish - would be less common. Completely transforms the position of being against abortion at any term into being responsible for late term abortions.

It's a risible argument really and totally ignores the obvious cause and effect. Easily obtained abortion promotes irresponsible sexual behavior, not any fable of lack of availability of contraceptives. If anything, the easy access to contraceptives promotes the societal acceptance of sport fucking as a right and so the cleanup when it goes wrong is also a right.

It's a risible argument really and totally ignores the obvious cause and effect. Easily obtained abortion promotes irresponsible sexual behavior, not any fable of lack of availability of contraceptives. If anything, the easy access to contraceptives promotes the societal acceptance of sport fucking as a right and so the cleanup when it goes wrong is also a right.

If you ended the thought at sport fucking as right everyone would cool with that. But with rights come responsibilities and obligations so if the rest of the thought is changed to the clean up is either adoption or raising and supporting the child then that would make a world of difference.

Now if welfare was to be denied to woman who became single mothers by choice there would be a lot less single mothers. If child support were to be made optional ( that is the man agrees to a financial agreement) as long as the woman has access to BC and abortion is solely at the woman's discretion there would be a lot less sport fucking by woman and hence a lot less abortions and a lot less single moms by choice. And probably a lot less divorce as well.

I would actually support distribution of condoms in exchange for an immediate and tangible commitment to completely ban elective abortions (i.e. premeditated murder), both through proscriptive laws and cultural rejection.

I would also expect moderation of other dysfunctional behaviors, but preserving individual dignity and the value of human life must be our principal concerns, and that begins with personal responsibility.

I would not on principle support other forms of redistributive change other than for purposes of rehabilitation. A society cannot normalize redistributive change policies and hope to control progressive corruption. It will certainly fail when processed through involuntary exploitation, which causes a dissociation of risk, and is typically processed through the establishment of monopolies or monopolistic behaviors, often enforced through granted or coerced authority (e.g. government).

And the underlying point is more than just being jocular--it's that Gosnell didn't just flip out and massacre some babies, this was a long, sustained, month-by-month and year-by-year effort on his part.

A society cannot normalize redistributive change policies and hope to control progressive corruption.

That is quite simply because the progressives are a form of arch capitalists, much as they'd deny it. In other words, they earn a profit of one kind or another. [Money, power, influence, personnel base, etc.] With redistribution producing for them they are driven to seek more..."market" principles at work...but bass akwards...they supply something you don't need, you accept it, they supply more, you accept more...soon you demand everything and they're ready to cut you off, but not their power base. Some must be more equal than others, you know.

I would actually support distribution of condoms in exchange for an immediate and tangible commitment to completely ban elective abortions

THAT is precisely how the progressive redistributive "corruption" you cite elsewhere begins. You compromise on something small that you nor anyone else needs per se...the progressives just say it'd be nice. So you go along...

For the record: As a high school 16 year old in a northwoods BFE co-ed private high school I was able to easily purchase 144 Trojan condoms at a time [once a month purportedly supervised trips to *town*], and share the cost with others in my group. At least one other commenter here went to the same school when I did and could probably verify this simple fact...condoms have always been available at low prices even in remote placers. There is absolutely no need to them to be *free.*

Renee...my teenage years were primarily in the 1950's and a guy had to go to the pharmacy counter to acquire condoms of any quality in bulk. That usually meant having to talk to the teenage girl working there assisting a pharmacist. A lot of guys were too shy [the reason I bought 144 at a time, hardly all for me, eh]...me, I figured that was a bonus....and yes, those were my very vain days.

cubanbob said.....But with rights come responsibilities and obligations so if the rest of the thought is changed to the clean up is either adoption or raising and supporting the child then that would make a world of difference.

It was not at all clear in my post but I am in complete agreement and especially with the bolded part.